Search form

Ron Paul, Crazy Person

Last night, Ron Paul was on The Daily Show, and under the gentlest of questioning from Jon Stewart, he said some truly insane things. After alleging that people who don't support him "don't understand what freedom is all about," Paul made his usual case that government is bad because it makes decisions for everyone, whereas "when you make a bad decision, it only hurts you."

Stewart tried to bring up cases in which private actors harm people, like industrial pollution, but each time Paul protested that no, no, that wasn't actually the market, that was corporations acting "in collusion with the government." His argument seemed to be that corporations are only capable of harming people when they're corrupted by government's influence. When Stewart asked whether the fact that government regulations can sometimes be ineffective means there should be no regulation at all, Paul made this truly amazing statement:

"The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn't enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can't do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher."

I trust I don't have to bother explaining just how nuts this is, but here's my question: Does Ron Paul really believe this? Does he really think that if there were no government, then no one would ever steal, cheat, or hurt anyone, just because they'd understand that the market would eventually make such behavior unprofitable? Is he really that stupid?

I guess he is. Paul is generally treated like the eccentric but cute uncle in the presidential race, and liberals favorably inclined toward Paul's views on defense and foreign policy are less likely to criticize him than they are some other Republican candidates. But we don't say often enough that his views about economics are every bit as bizarre and extreme as Michele Bachmann's views on the Rapture or Rick Perry's views on Social Security.

Comments

The old man might be a little different lol, but he is waaay better than the other candidates, when you consider the opionion of majority of American People. That last sentence I could've have worded a bit better, but I'm drunk. I can't remember where the apostrophe goes on People's'.

The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy people to dumb people ; )
Or rather...they seem like crazy people to those who support violance/coercion (government) as a means to fix social problems.

By that logic we should allow the mentally insane to roam free from their asylums. The purpose of a government is to solve social problems, depending on your definition of social. Also, since when is government always violent? There are plenty of policies that are not violent in any way. Finally, coerion is not always bad, for example, the law against murder and rape is coercive.

Ron Paul KNOWS that an absolute free market is impossible, that is not what he argued for in that video you posted. Dismissing him as "crazy" and his ideas as insane because he wants to give more control to individuals, to me, shows how biased this writer is.

You never really know if things work until you try them. I mean, logically speaking, has having so much government regulation in our lives ever turned out to be a good thing? Who runs around praising the government for it's 'heroic acts' to protect our freedoms? Anyone? ......anyone?

Let me name a few, the FDA stopping countless harmful drugs from being sold, legally at least. The EPA helping to save the environment and stop massive pollution so we don't end up like some Chinese cities when smog is think in the air and life expectancy plummets. Those are just two but there are plenty of other examples. The reason why no one praises the government for protecting freedoms is because that is its duty, in the same way you would not praise a worker for simply doing what they are required, you would not praise the government. Also, the government itself is not alive, so it seems odd to praise it.

the FDA? seriously? google FDA Corruption. the EPA? really? there are numerous carcinogenic chemicals that used to be banned that the FDA has recently unbanned for use in the USA. I challenge you to do a little, just a wee bit of digging into whether or not those two agencies are not ripe with corruption.

the government is a system (made up of living organisms) which has been infected with a stubborn virus called Multinational Corporate Interests.. Former presidents, Kennedy for one, warned what would happen when international banks gained control of our nations economy, or when the military complex gained so much power. this corrosive system doesn't work alone and is not working FOR the democracy of America and the freedom of it's citizens - take NDAA and the Patriot Act as examples. That is why people who pay attention to what's unfolding in this country (and who widen their focus/perception), despite the distractions of corporate media propaganda, do not praise the government for protecting their freedoms.

There are those who condemn noninterventionists for being insufficiently ambitious, for their unwillingness to embrace “national greatness”These critics should have the honesty to condemn the Founding Fathers for the same defect. They wouldn’t dare.
get more instagram followers

Have you ever wondered why you think the way you do? How is it that you can arrive at a similar place after being exposed to a set of ideas, with a total stranger? We have to accept that some of us absorb information in similar ways but we have to acknowledge that there are others who will never understand, or appreciate, or get what we feel.
buy high retention youtube views